Righteous indignation and Dinosaurs.

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

I am outraged. I have righteous indignation, at the very suggestion that dinosaurs didn't exist. There are some people, who suggest that scientists make dinosaur skeletons, to sell them to museums. They fabricate these various dinosaurs out of fibreglass, plastic and plaster. I am an expert in palaeontology, and botany, and I can assure you that dinosaurs did exist, and that scientists dont make them out of plastic. I can hardly keep my composure, as I am so outraged. I would suggest that it's slanderous of our entire profession. I would go as far as to say, that these people have it in for me and my profession. Infamy! They've all got it in for me!

Allow me to educate you. Every time that you eat an egg, you are proving the existence of dinosaurs, because a chicken is a non avian dinosaur. This is a scientific fact. In fact, every time that you make an omelette, assuming that you know how to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs. Why is that so hard to understand?
We call the chicken a shrunchophyla. This is a technical term for the fact that large sauropod dinosaurs, such as the brontosaurus, reduced in size, or shrunk, over a period of between 143-178 million years BC. In fact, all small birds, such as the blue tit, are non avian dinosaurs, but blue tit eggs are too small to eat, and that would be illegal anyway in the UK, as the blue tit is a protected species, and so are its eggs. So I'm not suggesting that we all go out looking for blue tit eggs to prove the existence of dinosaurs! There are much more obvious proofs.
Take for example, the humble emu, a native of Argentina and Paraguay. The emu evolved from the aracno-diploids over a period of some 268 million years. Its a miracle of evolution. Due to cladistic branching, the emu then evolved into the kiwi, a native of the Suva island archipelago of Fiji. Due to the harsh climate of Fiji, the kiwi is covered in a thick coat of fur. The kiwi also has a long proboscis, commonly believed to be, erroneously, a beak, which the kiwi uses to pluck worms out of the mud on the beaches of Suva. The kiwi has webbed feet and is a strong swimmer, and has a thick layer of subcutaneous blubber. In fact the kiwi is the only mammal known to have this blubber. Another miracle of evolution.
Jungle Surfer on YouTube posted a video, suggesting that the stomach of the brontosaurus would fall out, as there's nothing to hold in all that weight. Jungle Surfer said that the neck was too long, and so was the tail. I don't think that's very scientific. I would go so far as to say that it is unscientific. We know that brontosaurus roamed the streets of Bangkok, way before the advent of man.
So what to make of all this. Did dinosaurs exist, or not? To me, just looking at the distribution of all the various species of triceratops, that they all seem to originate in the USA, makes me wonder, if the triceratops arose in the USA, because they were made in the USA, in dinosaur making factories, by scientists? Could my righteous indignation be misplaced? What about pterodactyls? How were these creatures supposed to of caught fish or whatever? They are depicted as plucking fish off the surface of the sea water. Doubtful. Gannets and cormorants need to dive into water to catch fish, and they have proper wings that can fold backwards, and they can actually get out of the water again, and fly. No bird can just stick its beak into the water and pluck out fish. Aint happening. Bats use echo location, and have proper feet with claws, so that they can grab fish from the surface of water, but they have located the fish first, by echo location. Ospreys and fish eagles have good sight, and can see fish on the surface, and can then use their feet to grab the fish. Have a look at the pterodactyls and show me how they could have caught anything to eat, even if they could of actually flown, with those primitive wings - and I don't think so.
The premise is that the dinosaur constructions that are displayed in museums are a hoax. That people have become very skilled at making fake dinosaurs, dino-birds, pterodactyls.. not specifically for some nefarious evolutionist agenda, but that there is much money to be made out of hoaxing that, and selling it to a trusting public.

 

[HTacianas]

I am outraged. I have righteous indignation, at the very suggestion that dinosaurs didn't exist. There are some people, who suggest that scientists make dinosaur skeletons, to sell them to museums. They fabricate these various dinosaurs out of fibreglass, plastic and plaster. I am an expert in palaeontology, and botany, and I can assure you that dinosaurs did exist, and that scientists dont make them out of plastic. I can hardly keep my composure, as I am so outraged. I would suggest that it's slanderous of our entire profession. I would go as far as to say, that these people have it in for me and my profession. Infamy! They've all got it in for me!

Allow me to educate you. Every time that you eat an egg, you are proving the existence of dinosaurs, because a chicken is a non avian dinosaur. This is a scientific fact. In fact, every time that you make an omelette, assuming that you know how to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs. Why is that so hard to understand?
We call the chicken a shrunchophyla. This is a technical term for the fact that large sauropod dinosaurs, such as the brontosaurus, reduced in size, or shrunk, over a period of between 143-178 million years BC. In fact, all small birds, such as the blue tit, are non avian dinosaurs, but blue tit eggs are too small to eat, and that would be illegal anyway in the UK, as the blue tit is a protected species, and so are its eggs. So I'm not suggesting that we all go out looking for blue tit eggs to prove the existence of dinosaurs! There are much more obvious proofs.
Take for example, the humble emu, a native of Argentina and Paraguay. The emu evolved from the aracno-diploids over a period of some 268 million years. Its a miracle of evolution. Due to cladistic branching, the emu then evolved into the kiwi, a native of the Suva island archipelago of Fiji. Due to the harsh climate of Fiji, the kiwi is covered in a thick coat of fur. The kiwi also has a long proboscis, commonly believed to be, erroneously, a beak, which the kiwi uses to pluck worms out of the mud on the beaches of Suva. The kiwi has webbed feet and is a strong swimmer, and has a thick layer of subcutaneous blubber. In fact the kiwi is the only mammal known to have this blubber. Another miracle of evolution.
Jungle Surfer on YouTube posted a video, suggesting that the stomach of the brontosaurus would fall out, as there's nothing to hold in all that weight. Jungle Surfer said that the neck was too long, and so was the tail. I don't think that's very scientific. I would go so far as to say that it is unscientific. We know that brontosaurus roamed the streets of Bangkok, way before the advent of man.
So what to make of all this. Did dinosaurs exist, or not? To me, just looking at the distribution of all the various species of triceratops, that they all seem to originate in the USA, makes me wonder, if the triceratops arose in the USA, because they were made in the USA, in dinosaur making factories, by scientists? Could my righteous indignation be misplaced? What about pterodactyls? How were these creatures supposed to of caught fish or whatever? They are depicted as plucking fish off the surface of the sea water. Doubtful. Gannets and cormorants need to dive into water to catch fish, and they have proper wings that can fold backwards, and they can actually get out of the water again, and fly. No bird can just stick its beak into the water and pluck out fish. Aint happening. Bats use echo location, and have proper feet with claws, so that they can grab fish from the surface of water, but they have located the fish first, by echo location. Ospreys and fish eagles have good sight, and can see fish on the surface, and can then use their feet to grab the fish. Have a look at the pterodactyls and show me how they could have caught anything to eat, even if they could of actually flown, with those primitive wings - and I don't think so.
The premise is that the dinosaur constructions that are displayed in museums are a hoax. That people have become very skilled at making fake dinosaurs, dino-birds, pterodactyls.. not specifically for some nefarious evolutionist agenda, but that there is much money to be made out of hoaxing that, and selling it to a trusting public.

Hey I've been making a good living for myself making dinosaur bones. Don't wreck it for me now.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am outraged. I have righteous indignation, at the very suggestion that dinosaurs didn't exist. There are some people, who suggest that scientists make dinosaur skeletons, to sell them to museums. They fabricate these various dinosaurs out of fibreglass, plastic and plaster. I am an expert in palaeontology, and botany, and I can assure you that dinosaurs did exist, and that scientists dont make them out of plastic. I can hardly keep my composure, as I am so outraged. I would suggest that it's slanderous of our entire profession. I would go as far as to say, that these people have it in for me and my profession. Infamy! They've all got it in for me!

Allow me to educate you. Every time that you eat an egg, you are proving the existence of dinosaurs, because a chicken is a non avian dinosaur. This is a scientific fact. In fact, every time that you make an omelette, assuming that you know how to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs. Why is that so hard to understand?
We call the chicken a shrunchophyla. This is a technical term for the fact that large sauropod dinosaurs, such as the brontosaurus, reduced in size, or shrunk, over a period of between 143-178 million years BC. In fact, all small birds, such as the blue tit, are non avian dinosaurs, but blue tit eggs are too small to eat, and that would be illegal anyway in the UK, as the blue tit is a protected species, and so are its eggs. So I'm not suggesting that we all go out looking for blue tit eggs to prove the existence of dinosaurs! There are much more obvious proofs.
Take for example, the humble emu, a native of Argentina and Paraguay. The emu evolved from the aracno-diploids over a period of some 268 million years. Its a miracle of evolution. Due to cladistic branching, the emu then evolved into the kiwi, a native of the Suva island archipelago of Fiji. Due to the harsh climate of Fiji, the kiwi is covered in a thick coat of fur. The kiwi also has a long proboscis, commonly believed to be, erroneously, a beak, which the kiwi uses to pluck worms out of the mud on the beaches of Suva. The kiwi has webbed feet and is a strong swimmer, and has a thick layer of subcutaneous blubber. In fact the kiwi is the only mammal known to have this blubber. Another miracle of evolution.
Jungle Surfer on YouTube posted a video, suggesting that the stomach of the brontosaurus would fall out, as there's nothing to hold in all that weight. Jungle Surfer said that the neck was too long, and so was the tail. I don't think that's very scientific. I would go so far as to say that it is unscientific. We know that brontosaurus roamed the streets of Bangkok, way before the advent of man.
So what to make of all this. Did dinosaurs exist, or not? To me, just looking at the distribution of all the various species of triceratops, that they all seem to originate in the USA, makes me wonder, if the triceratops arose in the USA, because they were made in the USA, in dinosaur making factories, by scientists? Could my righteous indignation be misplaced? What about pterodactyls? How were these creatures supposed to of caught fish or whatever? They are depicted as plucking fish off the surface of the sea water. Doubtful. Gannets and cormorants need to dive into water to catch fish, and they have proper wings that can fold backwards, and they can actually get out of the water again, and fly. No bird can just stick its beak into the water and pluck out fish. Aint happening. Bats use echo location, and have proper feet with claws, so that they can grab fish from the surface of water, but they have located the fish first, by echo location. Ospreys and fish eagles have good sight, and can see fish on the surface, and can then use their feet to grab the fish. Have a look at the pterodactyls and show me how they could have caught anything to eat, even if they could of actually flown, with those primitive wings - and I don't think so.
The premise is that the dinosaur constructions that are displayed in museums are a hoax. That people have become very skilled at making fake dinosaurs, dino-birds, pterodactyls.. not specifically for some nefarious evolutionist agenda, but that there is much money to be made out of hoaxing that, and selling it to a trusting public.

I could be wrong, but I think I do remember that upon visiting the San Diego Museum of Natural History several years ago, there were some dinosaur "bone fragments" as well as full bodied simulacra being presented which were apparently made from some kind of composite. Of course, the exhibits therein that were really 'fakes' said as such on the description placards, so I can't say they were hoaxes. All I can say is, "They weren't real."

Nevertheless, I do believe in the existence and power of dinosaurs...every time I fill up my car with gas.

 

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

Hey I've been making a good living for myself making dinosaur bones. Don't wreck it for me now.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to wreck our profession. Don't bite the hand that feeds you, is my philosophy. It's just that it might prick the conscience, knocking out triceratops skeletons, and hadrosaurs, and all that.

 

[Sanoy]

Ask them where the plastic used to make fake dinosaurs comes from.

 

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

Ask them where the plastic used to make fake dinosaurs comes from.

crude oil. from dinosaurs.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Oh, I believe in dinosaurs. I just don't believe the silly unfounded stories you guys invent about the poor brutes.

 

[Artra]

I am outraged. I have righteous indignation, at the very suggestion that dinosaurs didn't exist. There are some people, who suggest that scientists make dinosaur skeletons, to sell them to museums. They fabricate these various dinosaurs out of fibreglass, plastic and plaster. I am an expert in palaeontology, and botany, and I can assure you that dinosaurs did exist, and that scientists dont make them out of plastic. I can hardly keep my composure, as I am so outraged. I would suggest that it's slanderous of our entire profession. I would go as far as to say, that these people have it in for me and my profession. Infamy! They've all got it in for me!

Allow me to educate you. Every time that you eat an egg, you are proving the existence of dinosaurs, because a chicken is a non avian dinosaur. This is a scientific fact. In fact, every time that you make an omelette, assuming that you know how to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs. Why is that so hard to understand?
We call the chicken a shrunchophyla. This is a technical term for the fact that large sauropod dinosaurs, such as the brontosaurus, reduced in size, or shrunk, over a period of between 143-178 million years BC. In fact, all small birds, such as the blue tit, are non avian dinosaurs, but blue tit eggs are too small to eat, and that would be illegal anyway in the UK, as the blue tit is a protected species, and so are its eggs. So I'm not suggesting that we all go out looking for blue tit eggs to prove the existence of dinosaurs! There are much more obvious proofs.
Take for example, the humble emu, a native of Argentina and Paraguay. The emu evolved from the aracno-diploids over a period of some 268 million years. Its a miracle of evolution. Due to cladistic branching, the emu then evolved into the kiwi, a native of the Suva island archipelago of Fiji. Due to the harsh climate of Fiji, the kiwi is covered in a thick coat of fur. The kiwi also has a long proboscis, commonly believed to be, erroneously, a beak, which the kiwi uses to pluck worms out of the mud on the beaches of Suva. The kiwi has webbed feet and is a strong swimmer, and has a thick layer of subcutaneous blubber. In fact the kiwi is the only mammal known to have this blubber. Another miracle of evolution.
Jungle Surfer on YouTube posted a video, suggesting that the stomach of the brontosaurus would fall out, as there's nothing to hold in all that weight. Jungle Surfer said that the neck was too long, and so was the tail. I don't think that's very scientific. I would go so far as to say that it is unscientific. We know that brontosaurus roamed the streets of Bangkok, way before the advent of man.
So what to make of all this. Did dinosaurs exist, or not? To me, just looking at the distribution of all the various species of triceratops, that they all seem to originate in the USA, makes me wonder, if the triceratops arose in the USA, because they were made in the USA, in dinosaur making factories, by scientists? Could my righteous indignation be misplaced? What about pterodactyls? How were these creatures supposed to of caught fish or whatever? They are depicted as plucking fish off the surface of the sea water. Doubtful. Gannets and cormorants need to dive into water to catch fish, and they have proper wings that can fold backwards, and they can actually get out of the water again, and fly. No bird can just stick its beak into the water and pluck out fish. Aint happening. Bats use echo location, and have proper feet with claws, so that they can grab fish from the surface of water, but they have located the fish first, by echo location. Ospreys and fish eagles have good sight, and can see fish on the surface, and can then use their feet to grab the fish. Have a look at the pterodactyls and show me how they could have caught anything to eat, even if they could of actually flown, with those primitive wings - and I don't think so.
The premise is that the dinosaur constructions that are displayed in museums are a hoax. That people have become very skilled at making fake dinosaurs, dino-birds, pterodactyls.. not specifically for some nefarious evolutionist agenda, but that there is much money to be made out of hoaxing that, and selling it to a trusting public.

Your heart deserves better than to be caught in a storm of lies and lies of lying. You have a lot of knowledge on this, more than I do so I can't give much comment, and that's always good to be knowledgeable, but the deceit that's going around it is not worthy of burning you up inside. God bless you

 

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

Your heart deserves better than to be caught in a storm of lies and lies of lying. You have a lot of knowledge on this, more than I do so I can't give much comment, and that's always good to be knowledgeable, but the deceit that's going around it is not worthy of burning you up inside. God bless you

There is a mystery to dinosaurs. It's not just that scientists might be faking a lot of them. I have been to Lyme Regis in Dorset, and I have walked up the beach, and have seen the giant ammonites. I have done the fossil hunting in the soft shale rock, and found ammonites. No one can fake that. Those creatures existed in our past. As real fossil evidence, whether that is real or not. Same with trilobites that they sell in Morocco, and the real fossils of plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs discovered along the Jurassic coast of England, by amateurs.
Just recently, I have been looking at all these huge dinosaur reconstructions in museums, and I have been thinking.. how unlikely it is that these supposed fossils were unearthed intact like that. Nah.. I don't believe it, not any more. Some real aquatic reptiles from before the great flood, and then the creation of a fantasy, by museum employees. Eric Dubay says that dinosaurs are always discovered in out the way locations, such as Patagonia and Mongolia, where nobody can verify that they are actually doing what they claim, or that they are actually just hoaxing it, and then making the dinosaurs in dinosaur factories.
But even some real looking fossils, of hadrosaurs, dont look like they could have walked. Are we looking at follies? The idea of follies goes back to ancient times. That the recent theory about fossilisation, isn't true. I'm not saying yes or no. It's just that there is a serious problem with form-function, even with genuine looking fossils, including the small pterodactyls.
I am thinking of late that they are follies, that they never existed as real animals. And most dinosaurs are fake.
But there's more to the mystery. Fossils of plesiousaurs have been found off the coast of peninsular Antarctica. This proves that that region of the earth was once tropical, but so was Greenland, presumably at the same time, or at least IMO. As the Hebrew bible states plainly that the earth does not move, then there is no continental drift, and no Pangaea. I believed in Pangaea, because the land masses seem to fit. But I don't believe that anymore, as the coast of Lyme Regis is still the Jurassic coast, so how can it still be an intact Jurassic coast, if the southern coast of England was once supposed to be squashed against north america? Not possible, as there are supposedly no gaps. So the bible was accurate after all, the earth does not move. And it's a folly to believe otherwise.
IMO, we are not looking at the past at all.
The global map that we look at today, is the same as always, except for the Mandela effect. The level of the oceans might have been much lower in the past. I had ruled out Atlantis, because of my belief in Pangaea. But as Kent Hovind says, those continents dont float on top of the water like lilly pads. There is a structure under the Atlantic, where the Azores pokes out, not that I now believe in Atlantis, and I'm not really interested in that, I don't care if Atlantis existed or not.

 

[46AND2]

I am outraged. I have righteous indignation, at the very suggestion that dinosaurs didn't exist. There are some people, who suggest that scientists make dinosaur skeletons, to sell them to museums. They fabricate these various dinosaurs out of fibreglass, plastic and plaster. I am an expert in palaeontology, and botany, and I can assure you that dinosaurs did exist, and that scientists dont make them out of plastic. I can hardly keep my composure, as I am so outraged. I would suggest that it's slanderous of our entire profession. I would go as far as to say, that these people have it in for me and my profession. Infamy! They've all got it in for me!

Allow me to educate you. Every time that you eat an egg, you are proving the existence of dinosaurs, because a chicken is a non avian dinosaur. This is a scientific fact. In fact, every time that you make an omelette, assuming that you know how to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs. Why is that so hard to understand?
We call the chicken a shrunchophyla. This is a technical term for the fact that large sauropod dinosaurs, such as the brontosaurus, reduced in size, or shrunk, over a period of between 143-178 million years BC. In fact, all small birds, such as the blue tit, are non avian dinosaurs, but blue tit eggs are too small to eat, and that would be illegal anyway in the UK, as the blue tit is a protected species, and so are its eggs. So I'm not suggesting that we all go out looking for blue tit eggs to prove the existence of dinosaurs! There are much more obvious proofs.
Take for example, the humble emu, a native of Argentina and Paraguay. The emu evolved from the aracno-diploids over a period of some 268 million years. Its a miracle of evolution. Due to cladistic branching, the emu then evolved into the kiwi, a native of the Suva island archipelago of Fiji. Due to the harsh climate of Fiji, the kiwi is covered in a thick coat of fur. The kiwi also has a long proboscis, commonly believed to be, erroneously, a beak, which the kiwi uses to pluck worms out of the mud on the beaches of Suva. The kiwi has webbed feet and is a strong swimmer, and has a thick layer of subcutaneous blubber. In fact the kiwi is the only mammal known to have this blubber. Another miracle of evolution.
Jungle Surfer on YouTube posted a video, suggesting that the stomach of the brontosaurus would fall out, as there's nothing to hold in all that weight. Jungle Surfer said that the neck was too long, and so was the tail. I don't think that's very scientific. I would go so far as to say that it is unscientific. We know that brontosaurus roamed the streets of Bangkok, way before the advent of man.
So what to make of all this. Did dinosaurs exist, or not? To me, just looking at the distribution of all the various species of triceratops, that they all seem to originate in the USA, makes me wonder, if the triceratops arose in the USA, because they were made in the USA, in dinosaur making factories, by scientists? Could my righteous indignation be misplaced? What about pterodactyls? How were these creatures supposed to of caught fish or whatever? They are depicted as plucking fish off the surface of the sea water. Doubtful. Gannets and cormorants need to dive into water to catch fish, and they have proper wings that can fold backwards, and they can actually get out of the water again, and fly. No bird can just stick its beak into the water and pluck out fish. Aint happening. Bats use echo location, and have proper feet with claws, so that they can grab fish from the surface of water, but they have located the fish first, by echo location. Ospreys and fish eagles have good sight, and can see fish on the surface, and can then use their feet to grab the fish. Have a look at the pterodactyls and show me how they could have caught anything to eat, even if they could of actually flown, with those primitive wings - and I don't think so.
The premise is that the dinosaur constructions that are displayed in museums are a hoax. That people have become very skilled at making fake dinosaurs, dino-birds, pterodactyls.. not specifically for some nefarious evolutionist agenda, but that there is much money to be made out of hoaxing that, and selling it to a trusting public.

Emus are not native to Argentina and Paraguay. They are from Australia.

Kiwis did not evolve from emus.

Kiwis are not mammals.

Brontosauruses are not found anywhere near Bangkok.

Pterodactyls are not dinosaurs.

You are not an expert in paleontology.

 

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

[QUOTE="46AND2, post:

Emus are not native to Argentina and Paraguay. They are from Australia.

Rubbish! Emus are not native to Australia. I've been to Australia, so I know. And how do you know that emus are not native to Argentina and Paraguay? Have you been there?

Kiwis did not evolve from emus.

Yes they did evolve from emus!

Kiwis are not mammals.

Of course they are mammals. Why have they got fur then?

Brontosauruses are not found anywhere near Bangkok.

I didn't say that, I said that they once roamed the streets of Bangkok, before the evolution of homo sapien sapien sapien, and homo Australopithecus.

Pterodactyls are not dinosaurs.

Sorry, but you are wrong again. Pterodactyls are dinosaurs.

You are not an expert in palaeontology.

Are you calling me a liar? I can assure you that I am an expert, and that you know nothing about dinosaurs, kiwis, emus, or nothing.

 

[Artra]

There is a mystery to dinosaurs. It's not just that scientists might be faking a lot of them. I have been to Lyme Regis in Dorset, and I have walked up the beach, and have seen the giant ammonites. I have done the fossil hunting in the soft shale rock, and found ammonites. No one can fake that. Those creatures existed in our past. As real fossil evidence, whether that is real or not. Same with trilobites that they sell in Morocco, and the real fossils of plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs discovered along the Jurassic coast of England, by amateurs.
Just recently, I have been looking at all these huge dinosaur reconstructions in museums, and I have been thinking.. how unlikely it is that these supposed fossils were unearthed intact like that. Nah.. I don't believe it, not any more. Some real aquatic reptiles from before the great flood, and then the creation of a fantasy, by museum employees. Eric Dubay says that dinosaurs are always discovered in out the way locations, such as Patagonia and Mongolia, where nobody can verify that they are actually doing what they claim, or that they are actually just hoaxing it, and then making the dinosaurs in dinosaur factories.
But even some real looking fossils, of hadrosaurs, dont look like they could have walked. Are we looking at follies? The idea of follies goes back to ancient times. That the recent theory about fossilisation, isn't true. I'm not saying yes or no. It's just that there is a serious problem with form-function, even with genuine looking fossils, including the small pterodactyls.
I am thinking of late that they are follies, that they never existed as real animals. And most dinosaurs are fake.
But there's more to the mystery. Fossils of plesiousaurs have been found off the coast of peninsular Antarctica. This proves that that region of the earth was once tropical, but so was Greenland, presumably at the same time, or at least IMO. As the Hebrew bible states plainly that the earth does not move, then there is no continental drift, and no Pangaea. I believed in Pangaea, because the land masses seem to fit. But I don't believe that anymore, as the coast of Lyme Regis is still the Jurassic coast, so how can it still be an intact Jurassic coast, if the southern coast of England was once supposed to be squashed against north america? Not possible, as there are supposedly no gaps. So the bible was accurate after all, the earth does not move. And it's a folly to believe otherwise.
IMO, we are not looking at the past at all.
The global map that we look at today, is the same as always, except for the Mandela effect. The level of the oceans might have been much lower in the past. I had ruled out Atlantis, because of my belief in Pangaea. But as Kent Hovind says, those continents dont float on top of the water like lilly pads. There is a structure under the Atlantic, where the Azores pokes out, not that I now believe in Atlantis, and I'm not really interested in that, I don't care if Atlantis existed or not.

There is a lot of mystique surrounding dinosaurs. There's not much I can give comment on as this isn't a field I have much study on yet, but I like the enthusiasm and I did read all of it. As long as any fabrications don't get to your Spirit, I'd say keep up the passion and keep looking into this.

 

[Justasurvivor]

I don't know there is something more to it than meets the eye

 

[Jimmy D]

There's obviously some sort of joke here...

But I don't get it.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Rubbish! Emus are not native to Australia. I've been to Australia, so I know. And how do you know that emus are not native to Argentina and Paraguay? Have you been there?

Emu - Wikipedia

Note that there is no map of South America in that article.

Yes they did evolve from emus!

No. They are cousins.

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...on-of-modern-birds-into-Palaeognathae-and.png

Of course they are mammals. Why have they got fur then?

Dude... Kiwi - Wikipedia

Please note the class: Aves. Not Mammalia. Are you serious? Do you actually think that the flightless BIRD, the kiwi, is a mammal?

I didn't say that, I said that they once roamed the streets of Bangkok, before the evolution of homo sapien sapien sapien, and homo Australopithecus.

No. North America. Nowhere near Bangkok, past or present.

Brontosaurus - Wikipedia

Sorry, but you are wrong again. Pterodactyls are dinosaurs.

No.

Why a Pterosaur is Not a Dinosaur | Science | Smithsonian

Are you calling me a liar? I can assure you that I am an expert, and that you know nothing about dinosaurs, kiwis, emus, or nothing.

No need. You demonstrate that you are not.

Personally, I think you're a POE. I don't see how a paleontologist could possibly commit the easily verifiable errors in knowledge that you have made here regardless of their field of specialization.

 

[46AND2]

[QUOTE="46AND2, post:

Emus are not native to Argentina and Paraguay. They are from Australia.

Rubbish! Emus are not native to Australia. I've been to Australia, so I know. And how do you know that emus are not native to Argentina and Paraguay? Have you been there?

Kiwis did not evolve from emus.

Yes they did evolve from emus!

Kiwis are not mammals.

Of course they are mammals. Why have they got fur then?

Brontosauruses are not found anywhere near Bangkok.

I didn't say that, I said that they once roamed the streets of Bangkok, before the evolution of homo sapien sapien sapien, and homo Australopithecus.

Pterodactyls are not dinosaurs.

Sorry, but you are wrong again. Pterodactyls are dinosaurs.

You are not an expert in palaeontology.

Are you calling me a liar? I can assure you that I am an expert, and that you know nothing about dinosaurs, kiwis, emus, or nothing.

You have a strange sense of humor.

 

[Ophiolite]

Allow me to educate you.

Base upon what you have posted so far I don't see much chance of that.

Other members have corrected some of the peculiar claims you made earlier. Here is another (rather important) example:

Every time that you eat an egg, you are proving the existence of dinosaurs, because a chicken is a non avian dinosaur.

Chickens are birds. Birds are avian dinosaurs. All other dinosaurs that are not birds are non-avian dinosaurs. You have it bass ackwards.

Oh, and if this was all intended to be humour, don't give up your day job.

 

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

Even I know that a chicken is a bird.

Chickens are birds. Birds are avian dinosaurs. All other dinosaurs that are not birds are non-avian dinosaurs. You have it bass ackwards.

I can't understand what you just wrote. Its gibberish. What does bass ackwards mean?

All other dinosaurs that are not birds are non-avian dinosaurs.

That doesnt make any sense.

As a scientist, I take offence at the suggestion that I am an ignoramus. Just because Wikipedia says that a kiwi is a bird, does not prove that it is not a mammal. Posting lots of stuff lifted off Wikipedia is just intellectual laziness. Now that we have established that the kiwi is in fact a mammal, I will demonstrate how it got to Suva, in Fiji.
The emu, a native of Patagonia, migrated south and landed on the shores of peninsular antarctic. During the early Induan stage of the early Triassic, there was a land bridge between Argentina and Antarctica. When the emu reached Antarctica, it migrated like an avian nomad, through the dense jungles, until it reached Australia. Due to punctuated equilibrium, the emu rapidly evolved into the cassowary, retaining the vestigial crest. Again, due to punctuated equilibrium, the cassowary evolved into the kiwi.
But how did the kiwi reach Fiji? This has puzzled scientists for generations. We now think that Australopithecus was a sea-going nation. They took kiwis with them, as domestic foul, and when they reached Fiji, the kiwis escaped and became the native fauna of Suva island, of Fiji.
Punctuated equilibrium is a miracle of evolution, and solves many difficulties.
The Australopithecus nation, became extinct in Fiji, leaving the kiwi, and fruit bats, that had become established on the islands. The kiwi is a mammal, but much like the duck billed platypus of Australia, it lays eggs. But these eggs are green and hairy, and are edible. They are commonly known as kiwi fruit, and are available in my local Asda. Another miracle of evolution, and logistics.

 

[46AND2]

Even I know that a chicken is a bird.

Chickens are birds. Birds are avian dinosaurs. All other dinosaurs that are not birds are non-avian dinosaurs. You have it bass ackwards.

I can't understand what you just wrote. Its gibberish. What does bass ackwards mean?

All other dinosaurs that are not birds are non-avian dinosaurs.

That doesnt make any sense.

As a scientist, I take offence at the suggestion that I am an ignoramus. Just because Wikipedia says that a kiwi is a bird, does not prove that it is not a mammal. Posting lots of stuff lifted off Wikipedia is just intellectual laziness. Now that we have established that the kiwi is in fact a mammal, I will demonstrate how it got to Suva, in Fiji.
The emu, a native of Patagonia, migrated south and landed on the shores of peninsular antarctic. During the early Induan stage of the early Triassic, there was a land bridge between Argentina and Antarctica. When the emu reached Antarctica, it migrated like an avian nomad, through the dense jungles, until it reached Australia. Due to punctuated equilibrium, the emu rapidly evolved into the cassowary, retaining the vestigial crest. Again, due to punctuated equilibrium, the cassowary evolved into the kiwi.
But how did the kiwi reach Fiji? This has puzzled scientists for generations. We now think that Australopithecus was a sea-going nation. They took kiwis with them, as domestic foul, and when they reached Fiji, the kiwis escaped and became the native fauna of Suva island, of Fiji.
Punctuated equilibrium is a miracle of evolution, and solves many difficulties.
The Australopithecus nation, became extinct in Fiji, leaving the kiwi, and fruit bats, that had become established on the islands. The kiwi is a mammal, but much like the duck billed platypus of Australia, it lays eggs. But these eggs are green and hairy, and are edible. They are commonly known as kiwi fruit, and are available in my local Asda. Another miracle of evolution, and logistics.

Ok, that was a little funny.

 

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

Ok, that was a little funny.

There's a woman on YouTube who makes all these videos.. Christians against dinosaurs. I can't tell if she's serious, and is actually a Christian against dinosaurs, trying to be funny, or just a schmuck. Is there really a group called Christians against dinosaurs? or it it just this one collection of videos? I have never been able to discover. Ken Ham believes in dinosaurs. He thinks that dinosaurs and humans lived together, in harmony, and that humans were safe, close up to tyrannosaurus etc. There is not a shred of evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, even if dinosaurs are not all fake. No fossils of humans, with ammonites, etc. But if you take a very fundamentalist take on the bible, then you have to believe all that, even if there's no evidence.
As a fundamentalist protestant, for a while, I toyed with various ideas. But never got any answer, as there is no answer, not in that simplistic sort of faith rationale.
When I converted to Protestantism, aged 28, I said to the local pastor that I had a problem with the global flood, and told him that I had been studying that for years. He said that Jesus mentioned the flood of Noah. That was convincing back then, but not anymore, not for me. The pastor said that I was going to hell, because I was an agnostic, and I was still doing research. That's OK, as I no longer believe in their lake of fire, or their heaven above. Threats used on vulnerable people, youths like I was, to get us to convert to Christianity, and check in our intellect at the door, of the church, which I don't go to.
Not for this man. Their religion, pastors, priests and bishops.
I was raised as Catholic. That is like a primer for conversion to Protestantism, usually the fundamentalist type of Protestantism, as that is attractive to the youth, as the mainstream church are now empty in the UK.